On Thu, 30 Dec 2010, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
|And there's already a great way to force everyone to adopt IPv6, really, and
|this isn't it. The only force that will make people put IPv6 on servers is when
|there are eyeballs that have IPv6-only service... and the only force that will
|make eyeballs demand IPv6 is when there are services they want to reach which
|are only available on the IPv6 Internet. And none of that happens by giving out
|IPv4 addresses to people who are deploying IPv6. In fact, giving them IPv4
|addresses *delays* the inevitable.
The only force that will drive eyeball networks to IPv6 is continued
customer growth and no more available IPv4 addresses.
If a few large eyeball networks decide that they can continue to operate
in an IPv4-only world by purchasing IPv4 addresses or doing more CGN /
NAT4444 then they can defer their IPv6 deployments. This will remove much
of the incentive for content providers to adopt IPv6. IPv6 adoption
stalls due to lack of IPv6 enabled content. The IPv4 /IPv6 Internet gap
remains wide, and all of the networks that are doing the right by
deploying IPv6 get panelized as they deplete their existing IPv4 reserves,
and transition their growth to IPv6-only, as those IPv6-only customers
will not be able to reach a large portion of the Internet, or can only
reach the majority of the Internet through sub-optimal and poorly
performing transition / translation mechanisms.
|The sooner runout happens, the better. That means that delaying IPv4 runout by
|forcing people to jump through more hoops is a *bad* thing.
This proposal makes run-out happen sooner for those who are not deploying
IPv6 in a real way.
This proposal does make runout happen later for those who are
deployng IPv6 in a real way... but I don't care about that if all the
"things" they are using these addresses for are reachable over IPv6, and
it helps them to move their pre-existing IPv4-only stuff to be IPv6
reachable.
Starting to make all new deployments reachable over IPv6 while we still
have IPv4 addresses left is a good thing. This builds better
justification for pre-existing IPv4-only content providers, and
application developers to support IPv6.
Encouraging existing IPv4-only deployment to be reachable over IPv6 is a
good thing. This builds better justification for pre-existing IPv4-only
content providers, and application developers to support IPv6.
Having more of the Internet also reachable over IPv6 is a good thing.
This means when the first IPv6-only deployments are forced due to
depletion, there will be a small gap between the IPv4-only Internet and
the IPv6-only Internet. This will minamize the pain of transition or
translation technologies which Comcast and others have suggested provide
poor performance.
On Thu, 30 Dec 2010, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
|Value judgment about address utilization that so far hasn't been supported
|by any argument.
|
Sustained growth depending on IPv4, a very limited resource, with out a
plan to transition to IPv6 is irresponsible.
Sustained growth depending on IPv4, with a plan to embrace IPv6 only when
your IPv4 stores are depleted is detrimental to portion of the community
who runs out before you. This behavior reflected in the community is
detrimental to you if you are not among the minority of organizations to
be depleted last. The behavior is beneficial if your IPv4 reserves can
out last your competition.
This problem is complicated by uncertainty surrounding the various
depletion dates (IANA, first RIR, all the RIRs you do business with, the
last RIR, your own personal depleting date) and changing run rates,
long deployment cycles, fluctuating market prices, and how deep your
pockets are as compaired to your competition.
This whole problem goes away if the whole Internet (or at least the parts
that matter) has good reachablility via IPv6 prior to the first
organization running out of IPv4 addresses.
To the extent that we come close to the whole Internet having good
reachablility via IPv6 while the number of users forced to IPv6-only
deployments is very small, will determine the level of pain involved.
__Jason